alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Pursuant to 5

TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except underthe limited circumstancessetforth in 5

TH

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40318

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OSCAR DEAN DAVIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(2:97-CR-6-ALL)

January 6, 1999

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Oscar Dean Davis appeals his bench trial convictions on four counts of

being a felon in possession of a firearm. Candidly conceding that the

government met its burden of proof as to the other elements of the offense,

Davis challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to the element of knowing

possession. He contends that he and his ex-wife were joint owners of the house

where the guns were found and that there was no evidence that he exercised any
 

1 United States v. Ybarra, 70 F.3d 362, 365 (5th Cir. 1995).

2

control over them.

The law is clear that in a joint occupancy situation, mere control or

dominion over the place where the weapon isfound is not sufficient to establish

constructive possession. Rather, there must be some evidence “supporting at

least a plausible inference that the defendant had knowledge of and accessto the

weapon.”1

It is abundantly clear from the record that Davis had knowledge of the

weapons; he admitted that he had fired one of them and was aware of the

existence of the other three, indeed he testified that he had spoken about them

with the local police chief.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                         27510
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               34312   
<PP&E>                                         1705651 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 344832  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1409798 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          55910   
<BONDS>                                        0       
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0       
<PREFERRED>                                    0       
<COMMON>                                       14381   
<OTHER-SE>                                     0       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1409798 
<SALES>                                        0       
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2063    
<CGS>                                          0       
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  318141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               488730
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (804808)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   688
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (805496)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (805496)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        



</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 238 (Monday, December 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 77299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31834]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7723]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Van Gogh. Up Close''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Van Gogh. Up Close.,'' imported from 
abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of 
cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Philadelphia 
Museum of Art, Philadelphia, PA, from on or about January 26, 2012, 
until on or about May 6, 2012, and at possible additional exhibitions 
or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have 
ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Ona M. Hahs, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 
632-6473). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: December 2, 2011.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-31834 Filed 12-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Michael M. Wick, M.D., Ph.D., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Telik, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                      |  | 
|--------------------- |  | 
|Date:  August 5, 2003 |  | 
|                      |  | 
|                      |  |
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

38 40 42


### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 08/01 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    In accordance with Title 41 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Section 102-3.65(a), notice is hereby given that the charter for the Cures Acceleration Network Review Board, was renewed for an additional two-year period on February 7, 2024.                          ( print page 11846)    

It is determined that the Cures Acceleration Network Review Board, is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the National Institutes of Health by law, and that these duties can best be performed through the advice and counsel of this group.

                    Inquiries may be directed to Claire Harris, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Mail code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or                     *harriscl@mail.nih.gov.*

Dated: February 9, 2024.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-03110 Filed 2-14-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Diane L. Kelleher, state and attest that:



(1) I am the Chief Financial Officer of AmericanWest Bancorporation (the
Registrant).



(2) I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that



    Amendment No. 2 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the periodic report) containing financial statements fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); and



    the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant for the periods presented.



|                     |  |                                                     
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Name:                |  | /s/ Diane L. Kelleher                               
|Title                |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
|Date: August 8, 2005
Exhibit No. 15



Awareness Letter from Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



August 1, 2005



Armstrong Holdings, Inc.

Lancaster, Pennsylvania



Re: Registration Statement No. 333-74501; 33-91890; 33-18996; 33-18997; 33-65768; 333-79093;
333-43872



With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge
our awareness of the use therein of our report dated August 1, 2005 related to our review of interim financial information of Armstrong Holdings, Inc.



Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
independent registered public accounting firm, or a report prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.



|                          
|--------------------------
|/S/ KPMG LLP              
|                          
|Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**WILLILAM LEE L. BAKER,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 202 EAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 1st day of November, 2016, the Petition for A llowance of Appeal** 

**is** DENIED

**.**
<PAGE>

                                                               Exhibit 3.3
                              ZYCAD CORPORATION

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                     (Pursuant to Section 242 of the General
                     Corporation Law of the State of Delaware)

Phillips W. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Douglas E. 
Klint, Secretary, of Zycad Corporation, a corporation organized and existing 
under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, 
do hereby certify:

     FIRST:  That on November 1, 1996, the Board of Directors of Zycad 
Corporation did, by its resolution adopted at a duly constituted meeting of 
said Board, propose an amendment, as hereafter set forth, to the Certificate 
of Incorporation of said Corporation, and declared the advisability of such 
amendment, and directed that the amendment be presented for the consideration 
of the stockholders of said Corporation at the next special meeting of the 
stockholders.

     SECOND:  That at the duly constituted special meeting of the 
stockholders of said corporation held on December 5, 1996,  the corporation 
adopted a resolution adopting such amendment, in accord with the provisions 
of Section 242 of the General Corporation Laws of the State of Delaware.

     THIRD:  That there has been duly adopted, in accordance with the 
provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of 
Delaware, an amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of Zycad 
Corporation which amends paragraph 4 (a) of Article 4 to read as follows:

          "The corporation is authorized to issue a total of 
          42,000,000 shares of all classes of stock, of which, 
          40,000,000 shall be shares of Common Stock with a par 
          value of $0.10 per share and 2,000,000 shall be shares of 
          Series Preferred stock with a par value of $0.10 per share."

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Zycad Corporation has caused this Certificate 
to be signed by Phillips W. Smith, its President and Chief Executive Officer, 
and attested by Douglas E. Klint, its Secretary, this 5th day of December  
1996.

                                            ZYCAD CORPORATION

                                            By /s/ Phillips W. Smith  
                                               ----------------------------
                                                     Phillips W. Smith
                                                     President and CEO
ATTEST:

By  /s/ Douglas E. Klint  
------------------------------
      Douglas E. Klint
      Secretary


                                      22
#### Thomas L. JONES, a Minor, by his next friend, James L. Jones (Plaintiff), Respondent, v. James W. ALLRED (Defendant), Appellant.

No. 29580.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

Feb. 5, 1957.

George F. Heege, Clayton, John H. Martin, St. Louis, of counsel, for appellant.

Kappel & Neill, Walter S. Berkman, St. Louis, for respondent.

WOLFE Commissioner.

This is an action for damages arising out of personal injuries that the plaintiff sustained when a scooter that he was riding was struck by defendant’s automobile. The plaintiff by his petition sought $10,000 actual and $15,000 punitive damages. The jury returned a verdict for $1,000 actual damages and no punitive damages. The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial on grounds that the verdict was grossly inadequate and that the court erred in permitting certain comments by defendant’s counsel in his closing argument. The motion for a new trial was sustained by the court and the defendant has appealed.

The defendant moved to transfer the case to the Supreme Court on the ground that the amount in controversy exceeds $7,500. As stated, the judgment, which was set aside, was for $1,000, but when the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was sustained the plaintiff’s claim for $25,000 was reinstated. The defendant here maintains that $1,000 is adequate and that the verdict for that amount should be reinstated. The plaintiff conversely maintains that the court properly held that the verdict was inadequate and that he should be allowed to again seek a judgment on his petition for $25,000. The amount in controversy, therefore, is the difference between $25,000 and $1,000 or $24,000. The jurisdiction of this appeal is consequently in the Supreme Court. Sofian v. Douglas, 324 Mo. 258, 23 S.W.2d 126; Hemminghaus v. Ferguson, 358 Mo. 476, 215 S.W.2d 481; Conner v. Neiswender, 360 Mo. 1074, 232 S.W.2d 469; Baker v. Brown’s Estate, Mo., 294 S.W.2d 22; Citizens Bank of Sparta v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Mo.App., 115 S.W.2d 3; Stein v. Baskowitz, Mo.App., 157 S.W.2d 807.

The Commissioner accordingly recommends that the case be transferred to the Supreme Court.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of WOLFE, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court.

*526The case is accordingly transferred to the Supreme Court.

ANDERSON, P. J., MATTHES, J., and GEORGE P. ADAMS, Special Judge, concur.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 10, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50032

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMEL WASHINGTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-170-ALL

--------------------

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jamel Washington pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled

substance with intent to distribute and to being a felon in

possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Washington

to 262 months of imprisonment and eight years of supervised release

on the drug count. The district court sentenced Washington to 120

months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release on the

firearm count. The terms were to be served concurrently.

Washington appeals, arguing that his sentence, imposed after the
2

Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005), was unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to

meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

The record shows that the district court fulfilled its duty to

consider all of the § 3553 factors and sentenced Washington to 262

months of imprisonment, the lowest end of the sentencing guidelines

range. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). This sentence is within

the properly calculated advisory guidelines range and is

presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d

551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006). There is no indication that the

sentence imposed was unreasonable. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 519.

Washington argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is facially

unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied because the

Government failed to establish the interstate commerce element.

Washington concedes that his constitutional challenge is foreclosed

by circuit precedent, and he raises it only to preserve it for

review by the Supreme Court. See United States v. Daugherty,

264 F.3d 513, 318 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Guidry,

406 F.3d 314, 318-19 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 190

(2005).

Citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Washington

argues that his sentence is unconstitutional because it was

enhanced on the basis of his prior convictions, which were neither

admitted by him nor submitted for proof to the jury. Washington
3

concedes that this contention is foreclosed by circuit precedent,

and he raises it only to preserve it for further review.

See Shepard v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1254, 1262-63 & n.5

(2005); United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.